Navigate:

Income gap slips into GOP talk

“It’s time for the Republican Party to bring these things forward and talk to the American people about it, because I think if there’s one hurdle that we have, it’s that we are completely misunderstood in what we’re trying to do. Anytime we can talk about these issues and lay out our philosophy in regard to it, I think it’s a good thing,” she said.

Another GOP House freshman, South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, laid out the GOP’s position on the issue this way: “You can acknowledge it and explain it, and you can offer remedies to correct it, or you can ignore it. I think it is foolhardy to ignore it if it’s what the electorate is talking about and thinking about, then you have to address it.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

“The way you address it is different from others seeking the same offices you’re seeking. That’s what the debate should be on,” he said. “I’ve seen statistics that suggest to me that the debate on whether it exists or not is over; the debate has now shifted into what caused it, how do you ameliorate it, and I think that’s a place that is entirely consistent with some of our other arguments.”

Democrats see the Republicans’ rhetoric as evidence that they’re winning the debate. “Their policies are about protecting the tax cuts for the very wealthy at a time [when] the very wealthy have enjoyed enormous income growth, even as the 99 percent are getting squeezed,” said Vermont Rep. Peter Welch, a leading House Democrat.

Republicans are still coalescing around a response to questions about income inequality, but Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a freshman on the Budget Committee, offered this distillation of the Republican argument:

“There’s not a single country or time period in history [when] there wasn’t income inequality. If we’re concerned with ‘the wealthy have too much, let’s tax them and give it away to those in poverty,’ that’s the wrong direction. The issue is how can we provide the maximum opportunity for everyone in America to succeed rather than to say, ‘Let’s take it away from the successful.’ It’s the balance between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.”

That’s not to say it’s an easy subject for the party, which disdains class-based economic critiques. Some members feel that even acknowledging income inequality risks encouraging the sort of rhetoric they’re looking to avoid. Asked about the connotation of the phrase “income inequality,” LaTourette said, “It’s a redistribution of wealth — which is socialist, which is communist and all of that — but I do think that when you pit millionaires and billionaires against everyone else, that’s a nice populist message, and we’ve got to get our hands on it.”

“In all [of] the messages that the president has tested this year, income inequality is probably the one that’s picking up the most steam, at least in my hometown, and so it’s something we’ve got to be aware of,” LaTourette said. “I don’t know if it’s something we need to talk about but … it’s something we need to be aware of.”

Readers' Comments (122)

Is there a smarmier, oilier, more disingenuous than Paul Ryan today? He has tried so desperately to appear the level-headed policy wonk when in reality everything that comes out of his mouth is reactionary doctrinaire conservatism aimed at maintaining the status quo for his plutocrat buddies.

Stuffing the coffers of the rich and starving granny and the 99% is no longer a secret. The story must be told. Americans are tired of sweatshop wages and no benefits The Repubs must Man-Up and do the right thing. They signed a pledge with the devil to protect the rich.

In Democrat-world, pre-tax income increased 2.64 percent annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 2.12 percent annually for the upper-middle-class and rich. There was no Great Divergence. Instead, the Great Compression—the egalitarian income trend that prevailed through the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s—continued to the present, albeit with incomes converging less rapidly than before. In Republican-world, meanwhile, pre-tax income increased 0.43 percent annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 1.90 percent for the upper-middle-class and rich. Not only did the Great Divergence occur; it was more greatly divergent. Also of note: In Democrat-world pre-tax income increased faster than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all richer and more equal! But in Republican-world, pre-tax income increased slower than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all poorer and less equal!

If you ever needed proof that Republican policy makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, this is it. The numbers don't lie. And the Republicans now want to make that disparity greater. Where was the great trickle down?

Will Republicans come out Koch's dog house and do their jobs as they were elected to do? Or wil they sell their souls to the koch brothers. In any case,if they are not working for the American people,they should be voted out NOW!

The average household income is $50,000 a year. Any individual making more then the average should pay a "rich" tax. A progressive tax starting at 0% for $50,000 a year, 5% for $100,000 a year, and 50% for $1,000,000 a year.

Also, eliminate the mortgage deduction. People in California buy these lavish $400,000 homes, and get to deduct all the interest. Sorry, if you live in a $400,000 house in San Francisco than you are rich.

We could call it the "rich penalty". There is no question that this would help decrease the income gap in this country.

In addition, we need national salary guidelines. Why should a artist make more than an engineer?

Why should someone who did not attend college make more than someone who did?

National salary guidelines would set salaries based strictly on education and years of experience. Why should one Hollywood actor make more money than another? Why should one basket ball player make more money than another?

It is obvious the current system is not fair, when a recent graduate and OWS protester with a four year degree in French history is without a job. Why should a person with a French history degree get paid less than an artist with no degree, or a basketball player with business degree? They all went to four years of school. They should be worth the exact same thing.

So rather than ignore the disparity — and risk looking out of touch — Republicans are acknowledging income inequality. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is discussing it; House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has talked about wealth disparity; and rank-and-file Republicans have started to lace the phrase into talks and interviews.

2012 right around the corner and with that elections. This is why they are concerned now. It has nothing to do with wanting to help the people of the Country. Otherwise after November of 2010 they would of been working on creating the jobs they ran on.

In an interview with POLITICO, the majority leader said he’s interested in sparking a “policy discussion” about the gap between the rich and the poor because “that’s what’s really at the heart of trying to figure out how we’re going to solve these big challenges.”---------------- Talk, talk & talk from the Do-Nothing party. They should been listening instead of just running their mouths. Their lies and distorting of the facts has now caught up with them. And what many now are worried about has nothing to do with us but saving their do-nothing jobs.

The repubs policies of trickle down, tax cuts and deregulation have been a failure not only in this country but in every third world country where they are applied. The New Deal/Glass-Steagall high taxes on the rich have created economic booms not only in our country but in every western industrial country. These policies creat a strong middle class which creates demand and deman fuels economic growth. It is win/win for everyone.

I don't think the GOP leadership fully understand how they are perceived out here. Their answer to everything is the same. Lower taxes for the "job creators", deregulate, and nothing for the poor or working class. Nothing but more burdens and less of the benefits of being an American.

If they win the WH and the Congress again, I predict this country will explode into real class warfare and not the rhetorical kind. I just don't think they are capable of seeing where their thinking is flawed. The rewards of delivering legislation to those who bankroll them are just too great. I think they must be stopped for the good of the country, and for their own good too.

Government-produced uncertainty?? You're going to blame Obama, and his whole 3 years in office for the U.S. sinking into the abyss over the last 30 years? You're going to blame Obama alone for your 1+ trillion a year welfare warfare program, which wasn't even 300 billion a year in 2001, and is the reason for 95% of our deficits? As far as the GOP's BS about regulations, I dare any Republican to take their 11 job bills from the House and go on the campaign trail and read them to everybody like Obama does with his. Not only do the GOP want to rob us blind, they want to poison us to death. They're using jobs to deregulate every environmental law there is. Here's what the GOP are going to deregulate to fix all our problems. By the way, only an idiot would talk income inequality while trying to rob seniors healthcare and Social Security.

(H.R. 910) Stop the EPA from ’legislating’ climate policy through the Clean Air Act.

(H.J. Res. 37) Disapproval of FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations

(H.R. 2018) Another Republican attack to destroy the Safe Water Act.

(H.R. 1315) Scrap the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (What happened to, it was the Repubs that called for reform?)

(H.R. 2587) Clip the National Labor Relations Boards wings so corporations can undermine union workers if they don't get their way during strikes.

(H.R. 2401) Establish a committee to analyze and report on the impacts of covered rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning air, waste, water, and climate change for each of calendar years 2016, 2020, and 2030. (Another attempt to create jobs by shredding every environmental law.

(H.R. 2681) Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 - Provides that the following rules shall have no force or effect and shall be treated as though they had never taken effect: (1) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement.

(H.R. 2250) EPA REGULATORY RELIEF ACT. H.R. 2250 would provide a legislative stay of four interrelated Environmental Protection Agency rules, commonly referred to as the “Boiler MACT rules,” that govern emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from approximately 200,000 boilers and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units.

(H.R. 2273) House Republicans pushed through legislation that kills the EPA and gives the states the power to regulate toxic coal ash from power plants as if it were municipal garbage..

The other night, Rachel Maddow was all in a tizzy showing a single chart of income disparity. Once can see the difference.

Even to those without much charting experience, it doesn't take much to to see where it started.

It ALSO doesn't take much research to find that if those same income charts are made against other economic policies, you can see where changes began and continued.

Basically it was entitlements. If you run any of those with the high income chart, you can see they are extremely similar.

You can also run a chart of real estate and it has a similar trajectory as the high income line.

You can also run a chart of the stock market, and it is somewhat similar.

My point is, the discrepancies can be traced back to

1) when entitlement spending started to accelerate, and it is either the cause or affect, depending on your ideology and whether or not a great deal of expansion has caused a society that is not as aggressive as in previous years and too dependent on government, or not. But, regardless of the affects of entitlements, it is obvious with a little research is that when entitlements expanded, incomes gapped more between those with less, and those with more.

2) The real estate one is pretty simple. The wealtheir own more property. They tend to invest their excess dollars in solid assets, over time. And, they do not sell it. Again, years ago, the most valuable thing one could do was invest in a small piece of land and get it paid off as quickly as possible. It was their foundation. It also kept people out of poverty.

3)Stock market, well, generally speaking over many years, it has a better return than tucking money away and on both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans of those situated as wealthy, tend to do that, both for their trusts, or their foundations (like Buffett and Gates, etc). and for their own retirements. Those who invest over a very long term will automatically come out better than those who don't. That's one of the arguments for the 401k's for pensions (and of course the ability to leave your pensions to your family, not governement). Ten or twenty years is nothing for a real saver.

And then you have to look at inflation and what types of assets actually improved, and which were simply in dollars.

This is just a simple observation with a little charting on the comments of income disparity. To show a chart, or talk of the difference on income disparity and start saying you are not getting your fair share, maybe some research on where it started and why needs to be considered.

No one is doing that. And they need to. Might learn something about our government.and its direction.

And the people who are protesting had better get back to an education, a REAL one, because in the direction they are going is very detrimental to their future by being ignorant of facts and causation. They are asking for more governmental intervention that will automatically cause more income disparity. One of those..., be careful for what you wish for!

The 99% movement has shaken and swept the country and world. Among those shaken are the ruling Republicans. The movement and the income inequality are both too big to be neatly ignored. No, Republicans foresee terrible political consequences for themselves and their party if they don't somehow deal with the issue. The 99% movement has achieved an important success -- forcing Republicans to acknowledge the vast income inequality in this country as an issue to concern us.

Now, Republicans are scrambling and flailing to find some way to deal with the issue without stopping their gung-ho preferential treatment of the richest individuals and biggest corporations. If they really want to constructively deal the issue, the first thing D.C. Republicans should do is side with Democrats in eliminating all special tax loopholes and federal subsidies exclusively carved out for the richest and biggest.(This should be at the top of the super-committee’s cut list, but isn't yet.)

But this is not likely to be the preferred path of Republicans. Instead, look for Republicans to deal with the issue as a P.R. problem, needing only the right BS spin and propaganda to turn the issue to their advantage. Oh sure, it may require Republicans to say things they will hate to say -- expressing sympathy for the middle class and poor -- but will it lead to the needed change of heart and votes on Capitol Hill? I highly doubt it. I think we'll have to sweep D.C. clear of all Republicans before they really begin to understand and feel the injustice, for this is no small threat to the modern Republican Party: since Reagan they have been working exclusively for the richest citizens and biggest corporations and redistributing our Treasury to them, and Republicans have been trying to take what government help the rest of US get away from US.

If they really want to constructively deal the issue, the first thing D.C. Republicans should do is side with Democrats in eliminating all special tax loopholes and federal subsidies exclusively carved out for the richest and biggest.(This should be at the top of the super-committee’s cut list, but isn't yet.)

But this is not likely to be the preferred path of Republicans.

Actually most republicans want tax reform very badly. What it doesn't want is what the democrats are doing and taking their pet peeves on industries they do not like for political purposes and only applying the cuts in tax expenditures (loopholes) to those particular industries in order to get out their message of class warfare. Since they obviously think that only their backed industries are deserving of enhanced tax incentives. .

That in itself is morally wrong. There should be no question about that.

If you look at the tax code, over the years there are thousands upon thousands of these tax expenditures, and they were not placed there by republicans alone, democrats give them as well, and in fact, Obama's new jobs plan have some additional ones.

No, the tax code is in great need of reform, all of it. Not just the parts you dislike or the industry you don't like today..

And as far as the richest, you need to watch where the democratic party gets its money, including our president.